One notable shortcoming of Ivermectin, is that you have to continually take it (I believe weekly) to stave off COVID-19.
As widespread as the disease is already, and the fact that there are many common animal reservoirs for COVID-19 (including dogs, cats, deer and bats - probably cattle, pigs and rodents as well), means that it won’t likely be contained or go away, until the great bulk of people have been exposed, and developed immunity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While some people take it as a prophylactic, most want access to it to help them get over Covid-19, emerging out the otherside with lasting, durable immunity but without the catastrophic harm caused by Covid ‘vaccines’, kidney and cardio damage from Remdesivir etc.
“ While some people take it as a prophylactic, most want access to it to help them get over Covid-19, emerging out the otherside with lasting, durable immunity but without the catastrophic harm caused by Covid ‘vaccines’, kidney and cardio damage from Remdesivir “etc.”
My understanding is that Ivermectin is less reliable as a treatment, than as a preventative. Freeper Terart who we lost to COVID had received Ivermectin, for example. Personally, I would eagerly take Ivermectin if/when I contract COVID (HCQ as well), but many succumb or suffer serious disease/adverse effects from the disease despite them. The protective effect from our vaccines against death or serious disease (with its attendant catastrophic risk of adverse effects like lung scarring and thrombosis) is known to be very strong.
I disagree about characterization of “ catastrophic harm caused by Covid ‘vaccines’”. The favorable risk/benefit ratio of the vaccines has been repeatedly established in formal studies all around the world, and billions of doses have been administered.
P.S. Robert Malone and his sky is falling ADE BS - still BS after giving it time to age. Are you ready to give up on that one yet?